4 ms·

'fulsome' means the opposite of what you think it means.

by KaeseEs 16y ago

jholman 16y ago
"Fulsome" means "abundant". I think that was correct, from the context. The fact that it is often used sarcastically only means that you need to determine from context whether it's sincere or insincere. I think it was clear, in this context. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fulsome http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fulsome
- KaeseEs 16y ago
  That's not the most common usage listed; the most common, which also happens to match the fixed phrase you used, is "offensive to good taste", the second most common is "disgusting, sickening, repulsive", the third most common is "insincere", cf. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fulsome http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fulsome
  - jholman 16y ago
    1) The phrase that _I_ used? When did I use it? 2) Okay, fine, we'll use YOUR reference instead of MINE, even though they basically say the same thing. What they say is that there are multiple meanings, and some of those meanings are the opposite of one another. In situations like that, the reader gets to work it out. It's not a case of having simply used the word wrong, as you claimed. In fact, both dictionaries (wikt, dictionary.com) specifically mention this in their usage notes. So why are you citing a source that agrees with me? Scroll down in the link YOU chose, to where Collins Dictionary senses 2 and 3 are consistent with the OP's intent. Scroll down in the link YOU chose, to where the Online Etymology Dictionary says that for 50 years now it is coming back into fashion to use it in the original sense of "abundant". If you're a descriptivist, then the fact is that people use it this way. And if you're a prescriptivist who prefers original meanings, then use the original (15c) meaning. Prescriptivists who only know about 100 years of history are only fooling themselves. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for pedantic corrections, it's a bad habit of mine too. But only when they're correct. You said "ekidd, you're using this word wrong", but actually, ekidd's usage was perfectly valid, as even your source of choice admits.

'fulsome' means the opposite of what you think it means.

by KaeseEs 16y ago

'fulsome' means the opposite of what you think it means.

"Fulsome" means "abundant". I think that was correct, from the context. The fact that it is often used sarcastically only means that you need to determine from context whether it's sincere or insincere. I think it was clear, in this context. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fulsome http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fulsome

KaeseEs 16y ago
That's not the most common usage listed; the most common, which also happens to match the fixed phrase you used, is "offensive to good taste", the second most common is "disgusting, sickening, repulsive", the third most common is "insincere", cf. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fulsome http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fulsome
- jholman 16y ago
  1) The phrase that _I_ used? When did I use it? 2) Okay, fine, we'll use YOUR reference instead of MINE, even though they basically say the same thing. What they say is that there are multiple meanings, and some of those meanings are the opposite of one another. In situations like that, the reader gets to work it out. It's not a case of having simply used the word wrong, as you claimed. In fact, both dictionaries (wikt, dictionary.com) specifically mention this in their usage notes. So why are you citing a source that agrees with me? Scroll down in the link YOU chose, to where Collins Dictionary senses 2 and 3 are consistent with the OP's intent. Scroll down in the link YOU chose, to where the Online Etymology Dictionary says that for 50 years now it is coming back into fashion to use it in the original sense of "abundant". If you're a descriptivist, then the fact is that people use it this way. And if you're a prescriptivist who prefers original meanings, then use the original (15c) meaning. Prescriptivists who only know about 100 years of history are only fooling themselves. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for pedantic corrections, it's a bad habit of mine too. But only when they're correct. You said "ekidd, you're using this word wrong", but actually, ekidd's usage was perfectly valid, as even your source of choice admits.